Filmmaker defends documentary on infamous prison

Sunday

Jun 29, 2008 at 12:01 AMJun 29, 2008 at 10:20 AM

DALLAS -- Maybe it's because Errol Morris was studying philosophy at the university level when the desire to make movies overwhelmed him, but the Oscar-winning director of The Fog of War listens carefully when he is asked a question and thinks it over before answering.

DALLAS -- Maybe it's because Errol Morris was studying philosophy at the university level when the desire to make movies overwhelmed him, but the Oscar-winning director of The Fog of War listens carefully when he is asked a question and thinks it over before answering.

He broke into the film business with an offbeat documentary about a pet cemetery that went bankrupt (Gates of Heaven) and followed up with Vernon, Florida, a saga of people who dismember themselves for insurance money.

He's probably best-known for the controversial 1988 crime documentary The Thin Blue Line, billed as "the first movie mystery to actually solve a murder."

According to Morris' Web site, The Thin Blue Line is credited with overturning the conviction of Randall Dale Adams for the murder of Dallas police officer Robert Wood. Adams was to be executed.

Morris recently discussed Standard Operating Procedure, his eighth documentary. The film examines the interrogation of detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in 2003 and the notorious photographs documenting their treatment. Morris lets several of the prison guards tell their side of what happened inside.

Morris has been criticized for the film's surreal style, which re-creates some events in a bizarre manner.

A complex and fascinating filmmaker, Morris is surprised by some of the criticism. But he stands by his work, which he does with an unusual vision and a quirky style.

Q: Compared with your other films, how difficult was this one to make?

A: It was a very, very high level of difficulty. There was all the research and the difficulty of getting anybody to talk.

Unlike The Thin Blue Line, everybody has a perceived view about it. They think they know the story already. They're not exactly willing

to change that view.

I'm surprised. People go in and watch the movie, and they still think these people are monsters. I don't see it. I'm too close to it, probably, to see it.

Q: How do you see these people?

A: I think they're all different. People tell me they are just simply villains without an ethical or moral bone in their bodies. It's a different kind of story because the people who got blamed never got really blamed because of anything that they did other than take photographs.

What did the photographs do? They embarrassed the administration. They embarrassed the Army. They embarrassed all of us. They kind of destroyed our idea of what America was about -- or what America was supposed to be about.

Q: You tried to track down some of the detainees. Was that almost impossible?

A: Not almost impossible. Impossible. The military was no help.

Take Gilligan (the hooded prisoner on the box), for example. We had his name. We didn't know when and if he'd been released from U.S. custody. We couldn't get any kind of answers. We paid fixers on the ground in Baghdad to find him and to find Gus, the guy who was on the leash. Nothing.

I would have been very happy to interview both of them.

Q: Is it a good thing or a bad thing if the audience feels extremely uncomfortable watching this film?

A: To me, one of the saddest things about this story -- and, of course, it's the real story, it's not just a movie -- is that these kids got blamed for everything. I like the idea that I'm making them people again.

I think, for that reason alone, this film has a reason to exist. It's also taking (us) through, like it or not, what is a central moment in American history. You may not like that idea. But, I dare say, 100 or 200 years from now, these are the photographs which will define the Iraq war.

Q: You interviewed Lynndie England only a month after she got out of prison. She seems to have such a swagger about her. Is that just a result of who she is or because she just got out of the slammer?

A: I think a lot of it is just getting out of the slammer, to tell you the truth. She's been separated from her son at a very crucial age. The family was very poor. Carter, her son, was being raised by her mother. I think she was severely depressed. Lots and lots of things.

I'm not a psychiatrist or a psychologist. I can't even begin to imagine what happens if you're the ultimate pariah. You're the person blamed for everything. And it's not really altogether clear what it is you did that's so horrible.

Q: Are you finished with this subject? Will you revisit it?

A: I'm not finished with it. There's a book coming out. I'm still writing essays for The (New York) Times. I have a big essay on the "thumbs-up" picture, which I think is one of the most interesting things I've ever done.

Q: Will you ever make another movie about this?

A: I don't know. I've got to make another movie. At the moment, I feel pretty beaten up by this thing. I've been attacked in a lot of different ways -- in odd ways, actually, that have come as a surprise, I'd have to say: the re-enactment stuff; paying people; this, that and the other thing.

It's really hard to make these movies. I don't want to complain. I'm really glad I made this movie. I wanted to make it. I'm grateful I got enough money to make it. I really don't want to make documentaries unless I can find a way of breaking the mold every time.